California minimum wage mandate shutters fast-food joints ⁠86%

By CA Post Editorial Board⁠99%

7/10/2026, 12:57:45 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 44.7% saturation with 275 hits. Analysis detected 2,215 faulty-reasoning hits from 615 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 78% and a BS Rank of ⁠86% (3,144 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.60% of the article peer group.

See more of our coverage in your search results. 
Add The California Post on Google 
California’s fast-food wage decree is like DoorDash, but for destruction. 
It delivers shuttered restaurants, job losses and boarded-up storefronts –– at least in some swaths of the state. 
The state’s $20 per hour wage law –– which applies to fast-food chains with more than 60 restaurants nationwide –– has devastated the fast-food landscape in parts of the Central Valley, insiders say. 
Where’s the beef? 
It’s increasingly less in California. 
Bettmann Archive 
California’s fast-food wage decree is like DoorDash, but for destruction. 
McClatchy – Fresno Bee 
In the Fresno area, at least 16 eateries have closed in the past year and a half, with franchise owners citing the wage law along with rising food, utility and insurance costs. 
Gone in some locations are favorites like Carl’s Jr. , Wendy’s, KFC and Jack in the Box. 
Sign up for the California Morning Report newsletter 
California's top news, sports and entertainment delivered to your inbox every day. 
Thanks for signing up! 
This outcome was no less predictable than salt on french fries. 
Rising costs, thin profit margins and cash-strapped consumers do not form a recipe for business longevity. 
That’s doubly true in regions like Fresno, with one of the state’s highest concentrations of low-wage workers. 
In the Fresno area, at least 16 eateries have closed in the past year and a half, with franchise owners citing the wage law along with rising food, utility and insurance costs. 
McClatchy – Fresno Bee 
These patrons are especially sensitive to the price of a Frosty. 
And if consumers won’t eat at least part of restaurants’ rising costs, the books don’t tend to balance. 
It all demonstrates the folly of one-size-fits-all mandates, imposed by the state, to serve political ends. 
Gov. 
Gavin Newsom in 2024 signed AB 1228, which enacted the $20 wage floor, at the behest of the Service Employees International Union ––which spends tens of millions of dollars each election cycle and has enormous sway in Sacramento. 
Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters 
California Post News : Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , X , YouTube , WhatsApp , LinkedIn 
California Post Sports Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , YouTube , X 
California Post Opinion 
California Post Newsletters : Sign up here! 
California Post App : Download here! 
Home delivery : Sign up here! 
Page Six Hollywood : Sign up here! 
Certainly, some workers have gained cash from the wage boost. 
Others work fewer hours, or have lost jobs. 
Analysts disagree on the broader effects the law, given that some restaurants already paid the new minimum wage when it took effect, small chains are exempt, and some brands can better absorb higher labor costs than others. 
True to form in California, while some consumers splurge on $12 water at Erewhon , others can’t or won’t pay 40 cents more for a daily Bacon Western Cheeseburger. 
Predictably, it appears that fast-food restaurants have modestly raised prices, cut some workers’ hours and replaced some employees with automation. 
The fast-food-joint collapse (in the Fresno area, anyway) also raises questions about affordability, political gluttony and the tough business climate in California. 
When it comes to good policy in Sacramento, where, indeed, is the beef? 
Where’s the beef? 
It's increasingly less in California. 
Bettmann Archive 
California’s fast-food wage decree is like DoorDash, but for destruction. 
McClatchy - Fresno Bee 
In the Fresno area, at least 16 eateries have closed in the past year and a half, with franchise owners citing the wage law along with rising food, utility and insurance costs. 
McClatchy - Fresno Bee 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.8%CA Post Editorial Board: 13.5%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias21.8%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.9%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic8.1%This article: 1.8%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.3%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic1.8%This article: 5.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.4%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias5.0%This article: 6.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.6%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias6.0%This article: 7.2%CA Post Editorial Board: 11.7%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect7.2%This article: 2.9%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.5%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion2.9%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.6%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias1.6%This article: 5.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.7%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias5.0%This article: 44.1%CA Post Editorial Board: 28.0%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias44.1%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.0%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.3%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 2.5%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.1%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.8%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 2.0%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.2%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 16.6%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 8.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.5%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.6%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority11.5%This article: 11.5%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.3%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma11.5%This article: 3.6%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.0%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope3.6%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 12.9%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization19.0%This article: 1.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 2.1%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring1.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 17.1%CA Post Editorial Board: 16.6%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion17.1%This article: 4.7%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.1%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question4.7%This article: 37.1%CA Post Editorial Board: 9.4%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)37.1%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.9%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.7%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 20.3%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.3%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal20.3%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.9%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.1%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.9%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.3%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 12.4%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.8%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy12.4%This article: 33.2%CA Post Editorial Board: 1.3%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote33.2%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.8%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 44.7%CA Post Editorial Board: 49.2%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice44.7%This article: 5.2%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination5.2%This article: 0.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 0.6%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%CA Post Editorial Board: 28.3%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.6%This article: 18.0%CA Post Editorial Board: 3.6%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…18.0%

615 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.2%attributed speech577writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Gavin Newsom

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words100% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+71.2 ptsWriter: 28.8%Gavin Newsom: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+58.9 ptsWriter: 41.1%Gavin Newsom: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -19.2 ptsWriter: 19.2%Gavin Newsom: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Gavin Newsom: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Gavin Newsom: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.